Hannah Eachus

A2 Government & Politics

“The Electoral college is the worst way of electing the President – except for all the other ones.”

The President of the United States of America is elected by secret ballot under first-past-the-post,

each constituent of a district- within a state, votes for the (usually) two Candidates standing for

either the Republican or Democratic Party. The candidates win the popular vote in each state, and

then that states Electoral College votes accordingly. A Candidate that gets the most votes within the

EC, wins the Presidency. The EC is said to be an old relic of the Founding Father's fear of the

electorate and in large states dominating the federal United States of America. There are many

critics of the EC and several reforms have been proposed; 'The Maine System', 'EC votes in

proportion to the popular vote','The Automatic plan' and the 'Direct election plan'.

The electoral college is the body, established in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, that

formally elects the US President after the public vote in November. The 50 states of America each

have a set of Electoral College votes based according to the population of that state, for example

Texas has 34 EC votes, while Vermont has 3 of the 538 EC votes available. This means that Texas

could provide a large win for either party, it also creates problems, Texas is typically Republican

and because of its 34 ECV's the Democratic party must win California (55 ECV and the largest state

for ECV's) or win Montana, Colorado, Wisconsin and Maine to get the same 34 ECV's. This gives

larger states the advantage in some elections. Smaller states also have undue influence in elections

small states are over represented, as they have more more ECV's per head that larger states. For

example California has 1 ECV per 617,000 residents while Wyoming has 1 vote per 165,000

residents. If the ECV's were proportional to population California would have 205 Electoral College

Votes.
In the November Presidential election, according to which electoral system is operated in that state

(Winner-takes-all, the Maine system) which ever Candidate wins the popular vote, they win the EC

votes. However this is truly dependant on what voting system in operated within that state. Most

states use the 'Winner-takes-all' system, this means that when a Candidate wins the popular vote

within that state, they receive all of that States ECV's. The exceptions are Maine and Nebraska

which use 'The Maine system' which rewards 1 vote for every district within a state that a candidate

wins, and then 2 votes for winning the state over all. This is a proportional system and has its

merits; it means that 3rd party Candidates like Ross Perot (1992) and is a more pluralistic form of

democracy. On the other hand it has been shown to produce even less proportional outcomes in

elections. Because of the Maine System Al Gore (Democratic Candidate and incumbent Vice

President 2000) lost the EC majority by 38 votes rather than 4 to George 'dub-yah' Bush. This

system would not work in Presidential elections unless it was used by all 50 states legislatures. The

weaknesses of the Maine system mean that it is not a credible alternative to the EC as it is today.

A Candidate needs an overall majority of 270, if no candidate reaches this absolute majority then

the decision of electing as President is given to The House of Representatives, while the senate

elects a Vice-President. This hasn't happened since 1824 but it nearly did in 2000, if George Bush

hadn't won Florida (and its 27 ECV's) then there would have been a draw. In the event of a draw the

HoR elects a President and the Senate a Vice-President. This creates several problems, especially if

one party has a majority in one chamber of Congress but not the other. In 2008, had there been a

draw, the HoR's could have elected Barack Obama (Dem) but the Senate elect Sarah Palin (Rep).

Such problems would not happen if the Electoral College was itself abolished, unlike 'the Maine

system' alternative a 'Directly Elected President' would only have to win a simple majority of the

popular vote and be President. This would create a pluralistic democracy where those that win the

popular vote win the presidency and are not impeded by a Constitutional requirement whose 3

principals are either out of date, unfair or no longer applicable. A directly elected system is also
favoured by the American public in 2004 a poll found that 61% of American voters would prefer to

directly elect their Head of State. However this alternative is very unlikely to be implemented

firstly, if the President is directly elected then the Vice-President will probably have to directly

elected as well. This creates a similar problem as a draw in the EC where the American Executive

could be headed by a Democratic President and a Republican Vice-President (How's that for a

balanced ticket). Furthermore such a change to the Constitution would require a 2/3rds majority in

Congress and a 3/4rds majority in each State Legislature. This would be near impossible to achieve.

The smaller states would never sacrifice the influence the EC gives them in elections. Small states

can demand their policies in exchange for electoral support, for example Iowa, with its 7 electoral

college votes requires all presidential candidates to make 'An Ethanol Pledge', Iowa is a rural state

that produces a lot of corn and no Presidential Candidate can win Iowa without this pledge. Lastly a

directly elected president undermines Federalism, with the Electoral College each states borders and

independence are respected a Directly elected president fades those borders and the entire country

becomes one large constituency and some areas aren't visited by a Candidate. This happens in the

United Kingdom were because of the unitary state, many areas of the country are not visited during

elections. In the 2010 General Election no leader from the 3 main parties visited the Isle of Wight,

anywhere north of Edinburgh and only one candidate, David Cameron, visited Northern Ireland - a

whole country of the Union - during the general election. The electoral college, for all its faults

protects federalism, a key principals of American Democracy.

There is no perfect electoral system – otherwise everyone would use it – however small changes can

be made to the existed system to make it truly reflective of the people's will. One of the problems

with the Electoral College is that its votes are represented by electors who cast the votes on behave

of their state. 16 states have laws forcing an elector to vote for the candidate that won the popular

vote in their state, however the rest do not and there have been cases of electors going 'rogue', in

2000 the elector for the District of Columbia abstained rather than voted for Al Gore. If all 50 states

cast laws forcing their electors to vote as their state then a small problem within the EC would be
solved. However this is a small problem and very few electors do not vote the way of their state.

To conclude, the electoral collage is a flawed system but it up holds the Constitution of the United

states of America, preserves federalism and is better than the alternatives.